A homeowner from The Gap has been ordered to repaint her roof following a two-year legal battle with her body corporate.
Read: Will ‘Renzo’s Place’ Finally Find New Life? Property On the Market After Years of Neglect
The dispute arose after the homeowner, Maria Gourley, 64, painted her roof a different colour than the surrounding homes in her housing complex at The Gap in March 2023.
Her body corporate, which manages the 64 townhouses at Paltarra Street under a community titles scheme, deemed the colour of Ms Gourley’s roof “disruptive” and in violation of the complex’s by-laws. Complaints from neighbours described the colour as “disturbing,” “jarring,” and “alien.”
After Ms Gourley failed to repaint the roof, the body corporate escalated the matter to the Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management. In a submission, the committee argued that the roof’s colour had significantly altered the external appearance of the lot, a change that required prior written approval.
On January 16, the adjudicator ruled in favour of the body corporate, ordering Ms Gourley to repaint her roof within three months.
A Complex Dispute
Ms Gourley’s legal troubles began after she sought guidance from the body corporate in January 2022 regarding permissible roof colours. According to Ms Gourley, the committee did not specify an exact colour but instead suggested she consult a contractor to match her roof tiles with those of her neighbours.
Ms Gourley claimed she tried to do the right thing, asked for a colour, and was allegedly let down. She believes the body corporate should cover the cost of repainting the roof, given that a mandatory colour was not specified until after her roof was painted.
Despite this, the adjudication process revealed that 13 residents submitted complaints opposing Ms Gourley’s roof colour. In their submission, it was stated that the discordant red roof was negatively impacting property values and the overall aesthetic harmony of the complex.
Moving Forward
At the October 2023 annual general meeting, the body corporate committee formally adopted a mandatory roof colour policy to prevent similar disputes in the future. However, the damage had already been done for Ms Gourley, who now faces the financial burden of repainting her roof and potentially higher legal costs if she proceeds with her appeal.
The body corporate maintained that the dispute was necessary to preserve the integrity of the community’s aesthetic standards.
Meanwhile, the homeowner expressed her frustration, stating that no neighbours had approached her directly to voice concerns about the roof colour. She said she feels like the matter could have been resolved through a conversation, rather than escalating it to this level.
Read: The Gap Residents Advised to Stay Ready for Wildfire Risks
Enforcement and Penalties
According to Queensland’s Adjudicators’ orders, failure to comply with the order could lead to enforcement through the magistrates court. Non-compliance carries a maximum penalty of $64,520.
Ms Gourley has indicated her intention to appeal the decision, hoping for a different outcome at a higher level. For now, the dispute serves as a cautionary tale for homeowners navigating the often-complex world of body corporate regulations.
Published 24-January-2025
